Thursday, 16 October 2014

As I left court last Thursday afternoon,
I was feeling genuinely sorry for my unrepresented opponent. We both were.Well, in
his case it was more angry than sorry.

He should never have been there,
let alone on his own, if he had anything approaching competent advice from the
“business finance consultants” who decided to have a play with some statutory
demands.

Now, as most commercial
litigation lawyers will know, statutory demands are tricky beasts. In the right hands they can get the job of
recovering money done very quickly and effectively. In the wrong hands, they can blow
up in your face, figuratively speaking.

The mature and personable
tradesman who turned up as respondent to my applications to set aside two
statutory demands saw it all as very straightforward. He had done a job of work, charged what he
thought was a reasonable price and had not been paid. It was not a problem he had ever encountered
before, he said.

That was too simplistic a view on
any analysis where there was an argument about the price of the work done which
was not agreed before the work started and was more than anybody expected
because of unforeseen complications in the job.

Worse than that, because those
who were not at my opponent’s side in court have so inflamed the situation,
the customers had chosen to follow my advice that the contract is probably
unenforceable because of non-compliance with the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.

The fact is, though, that in
another scenario the tradesman could have had his day in front of a judge keen
to listen to all that he had to say and look at all the papers and photographs
he had to show, none of which either the court or I had seen at any earlier
stage (despite requests).

In fact, the judge was very
patient - and entirely with my blessing.
Whilst he explained at least three times the difference between the
insolvency proceedings and “the normal route in the county court” these things
simply do not resonate with many non-lawyers.

It certainly did not strike a
chord with the respondent when the judge concluded that “this case should never
have proceeded by statutory demand” and added comment about “high risk
strategy”.

The real villains of the piece
were absent - the professed recovery specialists who lit this particular
firework. You could not make it up…

It is as clear as day from the
unusually detailed and rambling narrative on the statutory demands that they
were aware of the full facts of the case including, seminally, the dispute over
the price. At the heart of it all there
was even an issue as to whether an invoice had ever been delivered.

It was telling in that respect
that no copy invoice was attached to the statutory demands –not the original, nor
the alleged replacement said to have been produced after attempts to negotiate
the price.

Well that would be enough, but
why skimp on the job? The moldy icing on
this very stale cake was as follows….

First, both demands were unsigned
– it is a mandatory requirement that they should be “authenticated” under the
Insolvency Rules 1986 as amended in 2000.

Secondly, approximately a quarter of the sum demanded comprised interest, penalties
and costs under the Late Payment of
Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”).

For anyone who is not familiar
with those useful regulations, they are as the name implies relevant only to
commercial debts i.e. business to business.
They have no place in a consumer contract for work done at the
customer’s home.

As a matter of interest, the debt
collection experts thought it warranted £350 plus VAT per demand to produce these unsigned documents and then put them in
the post – not even bothering with the usual niceties of personal service.

And that’s not all. On top of that meaty
figure, there was a claim in each demand for almost as much again in “commission”.

Then we have the statutory
penalties (not an alternative to recoverable costs under the 2013 Late Payment
Regulations) and interest under the 1998 Act.
None of it had any place in this arena.

A month before the hearing, we
wrote to these jokers and in the course of two pages we set out all the
objections to their inept offerings. We
respectfully suggested that they abandon the demands and agree to pay our
clients’ costs which at that point were a modest £300 plus VAT.

Their response was to acknowledge
the point about the 1998 Act and say that they would abandon the claim for a
few pounds of interest, but not the costs (no I don’t understand either) but
otherwise insist on payment in full of the original disputed price and all of
their costs.

Last week their unfortunate ‘client’
left court no nearer - in fact further away from – recovery of his unpaid bill of over £2000 and a court order to pay almost as much again for the costs of our applications,
within 14 days.

He could not begin to understand
how he was in that position. These
people had been recommended to him by a friend.
He pays them £30 per month retainer and when this problem arose he
handed it to them – the professed “experts” – to deal with. When it started raining, they cleared off and
took the umbrella.

Today I see an article in the Solicitors Journal reporting that courts are ‘rapidly becoming
lawyer-free zones’ and (rightly) lamenting the situation. Some litigants are
turning their backs, others chancing their arm and people like this poor guy
turning to (seemingly) cheap muscle-heads who really don’t have a clue about
the law.

It’s not just a case of another
litigant in person doing his sincere best but ultimately wasting everybody’s time
and his own money. What’s really disturbing
is that this man was led to that position and left there alone by the vultures who
saw only an opportunity to demand exorbitant sums in costs from my clients with
entirely inappropriate menaces.

Yet another example of where our
civil justice system is heading - thanks to the idiot with the “Lord
Chancellor” badge.

Thursday, 2 October 2014

Did a little beach-combing on my
desk yesterday – part of the endless war on paper that the rest of the world
generates.

I have been wondering for too
long what to do with the rather forlorn response I had from the Black Horse to
a letter of complaint last month. Background to that was the time and effort we
wasted trying to establish the value of a prior charge on a property even after having been forced to obtain
a court order for disclosure because of pleas of “confidentiality”.

I am happy to debate with anyone
who has had similar problems the standard unhelpful resistance of all financial
institutions to such requests notwithstanding Section 35 of the DPA.

We have become accustomed to the
type of reply, not necessarily from this bank but from any of them, that
defends the indefensible and so the following came as quite a surprise:-

“I accept that this is an unacceptable time
delay and I offer my sincere apologies.Your
comments have been noted and we will take
your case as a learning example.

I am sorry for the
delay your firm experienced on this occasion and I hope that we can do better in the future.”

Strewth. To be perfectly honest, I am not
filled with optimism but we shall see.
If the writer had added “here is a cheque to cover your client’s wasted
costs and we don’t want to write too many more of these”, then I might start to
believe.

The next piece of flotsam is
something I expect to see more of in the coming weeks as a new piece of
litigation kicks off.

This is the three line letter
whose content is quite unremarkable and which I have already had by email. Judging by previous experience, the absence
of a faxed copy is probably an oversight.

As ever, the postal copy has now arrived,
all half a page of it on A4. Why go half
measures and fold it into a small window envelope when you can send it in a
full size A4 envelope and pay 76p postage on top of the unnecessary stationery
and handling costs.

I am sure that philosophy would
gain approval from some local colleagues, with whom I have regular email
communication. One of their number
obviously still thinks it is better to spend money on paper and postage to
manufacture two days delay for a routine (but arguably overdue and awaited)
communication to reach us.

The most amusing aspect is the
distance between each firm’s office, the post office, and each other’s
office. I would guess that it’s less
than 100 yards whichever side of the triangle.

Perhaps the most disturbing items
arrived yesterday. These were notices
that acknowledgments of service had been filed in proceedings that we recently
issued and served.

Nothing wrong with that at first
blush. The slightly curious point is
that we had identical notices just under a week ago.

Those came from Exeter, as we
rather expected. I remember a feeling bordering
on pleasure as I signed the covering letter to the court – that this was a
technology and construction claim that we did not have to send to the fun
factory in Greater Manchester.

The odd thing is – and maybe I
should know better – that today’s (unnecessary) notices duplicating those
already received last week from Exeter appear to have come to us all the way from
Salford.

Yet more easy money, at taxpayers’
expense, for the mail service that we allegedly flogged off at an
undervalue. But why is the CCMCC, that
ordinarily cannot do anything less than eight days behind schedule, spending
time and money unnecessarily not quite replicating the perfectly acceptable
service so far provided by the Devon court?

I am wondering now if we shall
receive a third set, if not from Salford then maybe Northampton (probably
around Christmas) – or perhaps Staines. Don’t ask me for an ETA on that one.

Meanwhile, my email to another
opponent has been acknowledged in his absence by someone who tells me it will
be put on his desk for attention on his return.